ArticleSurgical innovation2026
Evaluation of the Ergonomics of Surgical Instruments Across Surgical Specialties: Responses From 459 Surgeons.
Article in Surgical innovation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundThe ergonomic design of surgical instruments plays a pivotal role in the efficiency, safety, and comfort of surgeons. Studies confirm that poorly designed instruments can lead to physical discomfort, premature fatigue, and decreased dexterity. This study aims to assess the current usability of surgical instruments to identify problematic designs and highlight areas for ergonomic improvements.MethodsAn anonymized online questionnaire with 18 questions was distributed via email to various surgical societies, professional associations, and the mailing lists of surgical departments at the University Hospital Leipzig. Data on gender, glove size, clinical background, surgical subspecialty, and experience were collected. Participants were asked about physical discomfort, fatigue, precision, and safety issues when using surgical instruments and devices.ResultsA total of 459 surgeons participated, most of whom specialized in orthopedics and trauma surgery (81.48%). Gender differences were noted in glove sizes and frequency of complaints. Women reported significantly more difficulties, such as fatigue and imprecise handling, compared to men. Overall, 88.1% of women and 59.9% of men considered the development of ergonomic instruments important. Only 13% had experience using ergonomic instruments, with nearly half of the participants reporting significant improvements.ConclusionsThe study demonstrates that surgical instruments with inadequate ergonomics, particularly for users with smaller glove sizes, result in physical strain, fatigue, and reduced precision. The findings underscore the necessity for ergonomic modifications to meet the physical requirements of surgeons, ensuring a more efficient and safer surgical workflow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.